Is it possible to add something (insult to injury?) that hasn't been said before in this thread ? Yes.

Users think of the Apple App Store as an area where stuff can be freely tried and tested. But it's not - it's a STORE, not a workshop. And Apple likes to keep their shop clean and all, and have only decent apps on the shelves. (Yes, there have been and still are apps that don't work or are quite useless, but these are rare and at least Apple tries to draw some line.) And although they do take a long time to approve an app, it's their right. Whether we like it or not.

To test and publish our puppy's, we (both free-loaders and paid Adobe customers) need some fail-safe method to put stuff on our and everyone's iPad. Now, Adobe won't les us, because they want to rule the folio-kingdom. They hate to see us output folio's to iPads (as if they were PDFs or MP3s), without their kind but eventually paid intervention. That's their good right too. Whether we like it or not.

So we're sitting here, happily stuck between two big companies, who both don't move an inch towards an easier approval or easier technical solution. In fact, Adobe has been moving further away from technical ease-of-use (for distributing folio's) since the first incarnations of the Folio Builder, because they are afraid they might give something away too quickly that could turn out commercially very profitable later on.

Technically, it's not such a big deal to get something like an interactive publication from InDesign onto your iPad. Take a look at other tools, like Twixl, Mag+, and a few others, who use the official iOS Simulator or a direct connection, to test/distribute something on your iPad. But Adobe wants to keep their approach a tightly closed circuit, and stay platform agnostic (or at least cross-platform between iOS and Android) with their tools and trades.

Peter, I'm glad someone finally said that. I was going to but I have enough back and forth threads on here. Some many people think that the only thing Apple has better to do is finalize this one App. Apple gets thousands of Apps every day to be approved and just because Adobe has submitted this App several times before does not give it a rubber stamp to be approved. Apple taking it's time is the reason we don't have thousands of Spyware and Trojans Apps on IOS devices. I'm not saying Apple is perfect but I will take Apple over Android any day. The simple fact for me is that Adobe should have planned better and come up with better solutions to this such as the PDF model people have suggested.

I know we could upgrade to the Pro service but we have no need for that at all. We are a private company and what we do does not need to be in the App store, even hidden. We use DPS for internal interactive selling tools and DPS has been good for that, not great but good. In my opinion Adobe has been so short minded in how people can use this software. Adobe is pigeonholing us in a way, telling us how we are suppose to use the software. When did this start? I thougt Adobe software was all about creativity, exploration and now I feel like Adobe is stifling that to some degree.

I would guess that Adobe is just as frustrated as we are with the situation. Why Apple chooses to run their system and make their products with as much subjectivity as they do makes all of us a bit crazy from time to time. Apple is imperfect just as Adobe is. They both make tools, if the tools aren't reliable or capable enough to use for the work you do then you must either compromise your ideal workflow to match the tool's capabilities or find another tool.

Look at what happened to Apple with their "upgrade" to Final Cut last year, they basically rewrote their video editing software from scratch and released an early version with limited capabilities compared to its predecessor. The professional editing community did not take kindly to the subtraction of many of the features and workflow they were used to and were very vocal about it. The new version of the tool was unacceptable to many, but the editors could still use the older tool (that they'd been successfully using for years) to do their work. Apple released an imperfect tool that is still in the process of adding back many of the features professional video editors want. The idea of a "shrinkwrapped" and bulletproof software is increasingly a thing of the past. This is the new reality for software releases and you can choose to be upset about it or you can accept it and adapt. I want stability in a product before I use it and/or recommend that a client pays X amount of dollars per year to use it for distribution. Over the last year Adobe has worked out many of the kinks in the DPS system but it's still frustrating from time to time. As we've had to explain to our customers, if you want to use "cutting edge" technology then you'll have to accept some hiccups and disappointments along the way.

The old software cycle at Adobe was every 2 years or so new features would be added in a major release. The only real updates were bug fixes not new or improved features. Now we are getting beta releases (Photoshop 6), lab versions of products that are in development (Edge), and frequent feature updates and additions (DPS). If you don't like the way that things currently work then don't use the most current tools. Pretend that it's the old way and only update your software once every two years, or more realistically you can wait to install the v19 tools until they've been out for a while and are part of a stable solution that doesn't force you to make excuses to your customers.

Just as Apple charges 30% to developers who want to sell in their app store, Adobe has decided upon the platform fee and pay per download model. Is it fair that Apple takes 30% just to have access to the marketplace and app ecosystem they've spent time and money to create? Is it generous of them to allow free apps to live in their ecosystem and be downloaded without any ongoing cost to the developer?

It seems that you are complaining that Adobe is letting you freely use a system/tool they have created and are continually updating and trying to improve. You were invited to attend a party for free that others have paid thousands of dollars to attend. Seems like a good deal but wait a minute, the music's a bit too loud, the bathrooms use air blowers instead of paper towels, they're making you pay for your own drinks, and you aren't getting the party favors that surely everyone at a party like this should receive! That's not right, how dare they…

Don't get me wrong, I've been burned by the way things work a few times in the past year while using Adobe's DPS system. I've learned from that experience and am trying to make the best use of the system that Adobe currently has. My usage of their imperfect product includes waiting before installing new tools.

Peter, just as you accept that it's Apple's right to take a long time in approving apps you need to accept that Adobe has the right to run their system/tool the way they want to…even to the point of being able to charge money for the use of their system. Do I wish folios were as cheap and easy to distribute as PDFs and MP3s? Sure. I also wish I didn't have to pay taxes and that I could eat lunch at a restaurant on the moon, but that's not the way things currently work so I must accept it and adapt accordingly. As far as a fail-safe method to put stuff on everyone's iPad, I don't think it exists. "The cloud" and digital distribution have positives and negatives just like everything else in life, "fail-safe" isn't one of the positives. I find the cloud method much easier than sideloading when it comes to sharing folios with customers so I'm not sure what you mean by Adobe moving further away from technical ease-of-use for distributing folios.

Ryan, it is true that Apple's "closed garden" approach keeps out lots of chaff but it also slows down the wheat. That's a compromise developers have to accept if they want to release to iOS. Adobe developed a system whose initial user was meant to be major print publishers. Publishers who don't want their magazines to be easily shared the way that PDFs and MP3s can be. Just because we can think of better ways the system could meet our needs doesn't change the reality of the way things currently are in the Adobe DPS system. It's one of those compromises you have to accept when you choose to use Adobe's system. If it doesn't meet your needs then find another solution/tool that does. The DPS system will continue to improve and meet the needs of a larger market of developers as time goes on just as other companies will improve their tools as well. I don't go into Home Depot and tell them what their tools should do, I go in and tell the people working there what I'm trying to do and they recommend the tools they have that can help me get as close to accomplishing what I want as possible. Why are software tools any different? I choose the best tools available to do the work that needs to be done. When I come across a limitation of my tools I don't put on sackcloth and ashes, I improvise and make the best product I can with the tools available. I can also choose to write a letter to the tool manufacturers giving them my suggestions on how to improve their products, but I don't stand up on a palette of wrenches at Home Depot and yell out my complaints.

Again, it seems like most of the complaints in this thread are from people who are frustrated that they have free access to a system that major publishers like National Geographic and Conde Nast use to create and distribute to hundreds of thousands of people. I'm still amazed at the level of access and distribution anyone can have just by signing up for a free Adobe ID. Would it be better if Adobe locked down the system and only gave access to those who could spend $50K or more? Why can't you be glad that you're being given access so you can learn and use a system that allows you to create interactive digital publications for distribution to multiple operating systems and devices without having to write native code? What is it that you've done that in your mind means Adobe owes you something? You are not the victim of Adobe or Apple and how they've chosen to run their businesses. You're just like everyone else here, you've chosen to use an imperfect tool and are trying to make the most of it. If the tool is too flawed for your needs then move on to a different one.

Andrew, to your last long winded pretty much pointless statement that still did not address any of the real complaints. Why does it matter if it's free or paid, this is about offering a complete package ready to all users not the top 1% which by the way are not the driving force of Adobes profits. In fact it's the rest of us little guys which really drive Adobes profit margins. Why does anything need to be locked down, what a closed minded statement. As long as Adobe does not allow us to sideload or save to a file format we are lock into Adobes idea of the "Cloud" which is stifling creativeity and the use of the software as we see fit and pretty much sets us up to spend money on the premium services. I want to use DPS how I want to. Like I said before when did Adobe stare dictating how to use the software.

The simple fact is that DPS is still a Beta and Adobe did not plan it's use and implementation very well, not nearly as well as Quark did with there iPad solution anyway. All we want is software to publish to a tablet with the ability to do it how they want and Adobe has never until now told us how we are suppose to do that. Do I have to use some special Adobe service to publish a web site using Dreamweaver, no. So why do I have to do it now with DPS.

Your pointless points are too numerous to even try to point out. Points that you creatively managed to put in between the real points but still not address.

With that said I will leave you with one other counter point though. I'm not telling Adobe what there tools should do, I am asking Adobe to stop telling me what to do with there tools. If I want to use the hammer backwards it's my right and if Adobe what's to change that right so be it but all they are doing is holding creativity back by doing so.

I use the DPS to do things Adobe or other uses have not even though of. I have bent the software's capabilities to suite my needs just fine and if Adobe what's to nickel and dime us to use said software than I guess so be it.

Hi Andrew, first: thanks for your very elaborate answer. I read it through and through, and agree with you that business-wise, Adobe is indeed doing its free-loading users a great favor. And I guess many of them might be using it in a less troublesome way.

With regards to some bugs, problems, and choices, I ask myself: how many developers or even marketeers does it take, to change this or to take care of that ? How willfully 'committed' is Adobe to the wishes of a few big corporations, and how much effort and attention would they like to spend on building a more massively, widely used tool 'for the masses' ?

But there's another aspect to Adobe's business: they whole-heartedly ASK us for feedback. They DO invite us to stand up on a palette of wrenches at Home Depot and yell out my complaints. That's what this forum is for, and that's what they're gonna get, from me, from Ryan, and many others, who are a bit more vocative about what's wrong and funny and downright stupid about Adobe's premature but precious tools. These discussions, posts, and reactions are sollicited for, they're part of the eco-system Adobe likes to feed and learn from, even on a free-lunch basis ! Many of the more fanatic ones around here spend much time (often also for free) to tell Adobe what they think of their products and policies. It's what Adobe asks for and how they like to interact with early adopters and free-loaders, and it's BTW a totally (180 degrees) different approach, compared to Apple's.

I don't dictate Adobe what to do. They don't dictate me what to use.

I simply vent - just as crazy - my ideas and opinions about what's happening.

So we're all together in this, trying to make good products, and some money.

It takes a lot for me to post to a forum -- I usually try to lurk about and ask the occasional question. I do take offense with comments about "free-loading" users. Here's my two cents worth.

Do any of you remember using InDesign version 1? It would not output to anything but a PostScript printer. If you wanted to print at your composite (inkjet) printer on your desktop, you had to create a PDF and then print from Acrobat/Reader. Adobe quickly released InDesign 1.5 within months to fix this problem. My personal take was that Adobe originally thought that only high-end "professionals" would use InDesign.

I'm a fulltime instructor in InDesign at a community college, Adobe Certified Expert, Adobe Education Leader and Adobe User Group Manager. I'm currently teaching a unit on DPS to my advanced students and it's engaging curriculum, especially after just completing a unit on ePub. Some of my students will transfer to design schools, others will seek employment or advance their current job skills, and some use InDesign for personal enrichment. I hope they will take this cutting edge technology and run with it, no matter what type of user they are. With the introduction of the Single Edition subscription, I feel that Adobe has again listened to how a product can be used. Yes, there are some hurdles to be overcome and bugs to work out of the system. I took Bob Bringhurt's suggestion of reinstalling the plug-ins and everything works great. Many thanks to Bob for the quick response, and I feel his pain as he repeats over and over again the same information for the fix.

Not one person has flinched with the $395 Single Edition fee in my various presentations. I have not yet had the opportunity of working with larger companies and the other types of subscriptions. Being able share a folio might be as important in the future as being able to share a PDF -- which would then have more people buying Adobe software. And being able to take a folio to the next level and sell it for profit is just as important. But honestly, why would you call someone who just shelled out $1800 for the Creative Suite a freeloader?

Well Adobe, here is a scenario that will allow you to understand how the "free loader" contingency of the Digital Publishing Suite got not only you to lose a valuable account - but let a far inferior competitor make a boat load of money. I work for a very large pharmaceutical company and we were weighing our options for taking our sales aids to iPads. The very week of the forced upgrade I was working on my presentation. In the middle of the process I was asked to upgrade. In doing so, I got the dreaded "must upgrade your app" error message.

For me it was forced - since I was only presented with the option to upgrade. I couldn't sign in to the Folio Builder without doing so. Or it wasn't clearly shown another way to cancel out of the upgrade anyways. For me this was a devastating blow to the overall stability of the product. Our near-sighted IT Department felt this process might cause confusion for the end-user. No matter how many times I tried to explain the situation, our IT department never grasped the situation correctly. And in the end we used a far inferior solution. In addition you will also be losing the tracking side of our companies/clients sites (Catalyst). Not because of this, but just since it will all no longer be integrated. One of my main selling points to the powers that be for DPS.

I can't truly estimate the amount of money lost here. But it is quite large. So the lesson to be learned, never underestimate who you may screw by not properly engineering your software solution-no matter what level. Even the so called free loaders. I was a champion for your product but left out in the dark by bad business practices. The only one to blame is Adobe. The simple solution on every level of the DPS would be to select the version of the viewer you want to use at export. It is an easy software fix. And given the situation of privacy and Apple cracking down-be smart and think of every possible hiccup along the way. As some people may be inclined to believe, Apple is not to blame. Given the often changing policies of new technologies, good companies forsee possible problems and plan for them. Properly deploying software so it works is pretty simple. And Adobe has been in the software business long enough to understand this.

I will continue free loading, as it's called here, for my personal stuff. But just remember at the grassroots level is where the foundation starts. Keep everyone happy and you will keep your products growing. Instead of waiting for Apple to approve your app. Update your existing software to be compatible with all levels.

Thanks for your detailed feedback, Brad. The team is well aware of the confusion caused by the two installers. As I've mentioned before, the DPS team is working on a Save As feature. If all goes well, the code will be in place for v20, and from v21 onwards, you'll be able to update your tools and then save the folio to a specific target version (v20 or later). That way, if there is a delay in Apple approving the viewer or if a new feature introduces "regressive" bugs that affect existing designs, you won't have to go through the awkward process of installing a previous set of tools. It should simplify matters for experienced and new users alike. Let's hope the implementation of this feature goes smoothly.

Hi Adobe. I am unable to view my DPS Folio with your Adobe content viewer software. We purchased Design Premium 5.5 with the DPS in mind. So I am literally stuck with something that does not help me much. So I am now resorting to use all kinds of other software to generate a DPS – which defeats the whole object. Please indicate when the update will happen ASAP.

Hi Bob, yes, I have read and understood the thread before posting. But all I am hearing are excuses. Do I have a working app I am able to view on the iPad? No. Is there an estimated time given for when this will be working? No. The reasons for me are irrelevant. I am just after a working product. But thanks for the helpful answer...

- you update to the latest tools v19 and test with your custom viewer (if you're a pro or enterprise client)

- if you don't have a licence, you install the v18 tools instead and continue creating content. No problems what so ever.

I've installed the v18 tools a few times now because I go from testing v19 (with my own viewer) to using v18 for teaching classes (where I need content viewer) and I've had ZERO problems. The communication from Adobe is very clear so now everyone knows what to do.

Even if people don't agree and say stuff like "I purchased Adobe soft, so I am also a paying customer. Why am I left back?", is just beside the point. You can perfectly create iPad apps and publications. And I think it's hard to believe that people cannot continue their work for a client because they can't preview v19 folios ... Just roll back to v18. For creative work, this makes no difference what so ever.

And if anyone thinks that it takes too long for the new viewer to be cleared, send an email to Apple. :-)

Remember that we are talking about a pretty complex and technical workflow solution.

But would my previous submitted app which is using the same adobe id be affected once i decided to use the Viewer Buider for my new folio?

Would it be included on the download once the previously submitted app is approved?

We have an enterprise account and using muliple-app. Just submitted our first app for review, however, since your adobe viewer is still for approval, was thinking of creating a customized viewer using Viwer Builder as per your suggestion. My worry is, would this affect my previous submission considering I need to press 'publish' for our next folio which is still for checking.

If you generate a new Branded Viewer version of your App, it should replace your previous one.

This of course doesn't apply to the Custom Viewer app, as you do not submit it to Apple, but load it directly via iTunes to the registered iPads in the mobileprovision certificate you use when generating it.

The Custom Viewer app is a sort of un-branded, preset featured developer app that Adobe graciously provides us for cases such as this.

I'd suggest using the same mobileprovision certificate you used for your Branded Viewer App.

Starting with v20, the code is in place. When v23 comes out, you should be able to publish the folio as v23, v22, v21, or v20 (but not earlier) if all goes according to plan. The current practice is still in place. You need to (1) uninstall and roll back to a previous version, (2) build a custom Adobe Content Viewer if you have a Pro or Enterprise account, or (3) wait until Apple approves the viewer.